All
Members present are required to declare, at this point in the
meeting or

as
soon as possible thereafter:

i.any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or;

ii.other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting

NOTES:

·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary
interest;

·as well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner); and

·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

Purpose of the
Report:To respond to the Select
Committee’s request to consider the issues concerning
affordable housing in Surrey and to introduce the concept of the
Asset and Place Strategy through which the County Council intends
to develop this

Members questioned the current Council position on
Key Worker housing and asked whether there had been any significant
shifts in thinking.Members stressed that
they felt the provision of affordable Key Worker Housing was
crucial and questioned how this could be adequately delivered as a
part of the Asset and Place Strategy. The Cabinet Member for Place
explained that there had been a shift in thinking from what had
been previously suggested and highlighted that there was an acute
need for affordable Key Worker housing and that there was a renewed
focus on the delivery of this which would be included as part of
the Asset and Place Strategy.

Members questioned the definition of “Truly
Affordable Housing,” and what this meant in practice.
Officers and the Cabinet Member noted that this was a Surrey County
Council definition, rather than a statutory one. However, officers
explained that the evidence suggested that “Truly
Affordable,” in Surrey would be that rents would be set at
Social Rent level.

The Cabinet Member noted that there was a tendency
to concentrate on the delivery of raw numbers of housing, rather
than delivering “Truly Affordable” housing. The Cabinet
Member stressed that he would prefer to ensure that the stock that
were built were “Truly Affordable.” It was explained
that work needed to be undertaken with District and Borough
Authorities to focus more on “Truly Affordable”
housing.

Members questioned delivery of “Truly
Affordable Housing,” and how this could be undertaken in the
current financial climate. The Cabinet Member noted that work must
be undertaken with Boroughs and Districts to determine the best way
to proceed. It was stressed that there needed to be better
communication with Borough and District Planning departments and
with Members to encourage utilisation of this.

Members pointed out that there was a disconnect
between the need to get maximum return on Surrey assets, both from
a statutory requirement and from a financial need for the Council,
and the requirement to create “Truly Affordable
Housing.” Officers explained that there was a balance to be
struck between the need to generate income and the need to create
affordable housing. It was also noted that, under statutory
guidance, that the Council could sell land at less than market
value if the sale was justified in terms of developing it into
social housing.

Members and Officers agreed that setting the
criteria for the utilisation of Surrey’s assets, including
for the provision of affordable housing, was an important aspect to
determine as part of the Asset and Place Strategy. It was also
noted that determining criteria for delivery specifications of any
project was also an important aspect of this design.

Purpose of
the Report:To provide Members with an
overview of the performance of the current Core Maintenance
contract with Kier Highways, Value for Money assessments of the
arrangements and inform the Terms of Reference for a new Task and
Finish group that will support and scrutinise the service as it
develops a new contract model and specification for 2021
onwards.

Members and the Cabinet Member for Place updated the
Committee regarding communications that are sent from the Highways
Authority and the need for clarity of information sent to Members
and to the public. It was explained that officers had agreed to
review how the service communicates with Members and ensure that
the service continue to improve the way that it
communicates.

Members questioned street furniture repair and the
responsibility for damage caused by accidents, and noted that there
were instances of unrepaired street furniture damage. The Cabinet
Member noted that responsibility for some repairs were part of the
current contract, but stressed that the primary function was to
make any furniture damage safe. It was noted that higher priority
furniture would be replaced as a higher priority, but stressed that
lower priority repairs may take longer. It was noted that recovery
of costs for high priority repairs came from the third party
insurance and that these costs were returned to the Highways
Authority when successfully claimed.

Members commented that evidence provided suggested
that the current contract arrangement was, generally good value for
money. Members questioned whether there had been any significant
changes that would ensure that a future contract with a similar
design framework would not be value for money and where
improvements could potentially be made. The Cabinet Member noted
that there had been significant renegotiations of the contract
during its lifetime which had improved its value of the course of
its operation. It was noted by officers that there was also
additional scope for incremental improvements, but that the design
was fundamentally good value for money.

Officers explained that they had been exploring how
the contract had been performing. It was highlighted that they had
recently been considering activities undertaken with partners to
ascertain their effectiveness, and that they had undertaken
benchmarking exercises against other authorities’ performance
to determine quality and best value for money. Officers noted that
the next stage of the process was to determine how the service
could achieve greater value for money in any redesign. Officers
offered to share outline graphs and benchmarking against other
authorities with the Committee.

Members questioned the disconnect between the
resident’s survey perception of the performance of the
Highways Authority and the Resident Panel, and why there was a
difference in the perception of performance between these two
groups. Officers noted that customer assessment measurements were
wide and that the panel was a smaller group of interested
individuals. It was highlighted that customer satisfaction levels
were generally low across all benchmarked authorities, but that
satisfaction increased with an understanding and improved
communication of how and why work was being undertaken.